I’m glad you said this Diego! I have a couple questions that I feel were accidentally sidestepped with context, that could be built upon after the discussion we’ve had.
- What is DFINITYs stance on a proposal manufacturing a circumstance to be “opportunized upon” by a secondary proposal down the line.
(Don’t wanna re-ask this, but rather build off it, so I’ll provide context 
)
- What is DFINITYs stance on multiple “agendas” being pushed within the same proposal? (ex, Spam proposal, but it doesn’t completely address spam - it reduces inflation & creates abandoned icp)
Response: …if the spam proposal ALSO helped the IC become more environmentally friendly, that would be nice but it was only judged by DFINITY on its intended goal… and the cost of implementing it. If implementing it, would make the IC slower for example, DFINITY likely would not have accepted. If the author had an agenda to reduce inflation, so they used a proposal that reduced spam to get it…
So does this imply that DFINITY only has issues with agendas being pushed via the NNS if they affect network performance? It seems to also imply that the cause & affect of the proposal is not considered either. Is this a safe voting practice when DFINITY is in control of such a large VP%?